medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: Richard Kay <[log in to unmask]>
>....to respond to your call for medieval examples, I would cite the use of a
cross (+) as the "signum" of those lacking a seal in the subscription of
documents, first in Roman Law, and commonly also in the Middle Ages.
i beg to differ a bit, Skip.
the (relatively few) examples of the use of the "S[ignum]" i've seen in
Chartrain charters of the 11th and 12th cc. seem to be unrelated to the
"Signatory's" lack of a seal.
in this region, in this period (both important qualifications), the "Testes"
lists are generally quite long --and, btw, a very, very fertile source of
genealogical and other information.
"private" seals --as opposed to, say, seals used by ecclesiastical office
holders-- attached (or formerly attached) to charters) are not at all common
in this period (i can think of no examples i've seen before the last quarter
of c. 12 and, even then, they are quite rare).
of course, most charters survive only in (usually later) cartulary copies
--where the "S." is more or less common (though not invariably found) before
the name of the witness (esp. the high ranking TT at the beginning of the
list), and suggests that the original charter from which the copy was made had
this[ese] "S."s before the name of the witness.
among the few examples i can think of (low, these 20+ years later) is one of
c. 1100, a rather long charter (a kind of "pancart" actually), which had, at
the head of its Testes list, something like: "S. + Herveus [dominus
Gallardonensis]" and several others, each beginning with the "S. + [name]"
format.
in the original, surviving charter the crosses (+) are, rather clearly, shaky
"autographs," made by someone who is not used to holding a plume and
(presumably) never using one except on those rare occasions where his/her
[true] "Signum" is required.
my [dim] memory is that several --perhaps all-- of these "signs" of the cross
were shakily drawn and, in at least one instance, accompanied by a very nice
inkblot.
more to the point, perhaps, i believe that we have --from many periods and
regions-- examples of surviving original charters which have "S. [name]" where
the person named is of quite high rank --a bishop, say-- and i'm thinking that
it would be a bit of a stretch to maintain that the reason why the "S."
precedes his name is simply because he didn't have a seal.
i've always just assumed that he actually made his "Signum" (a cross or
whatever) in the original charter as the Sign (as it were) that he was
present, and witnessed the proceedings being described in the charter --the
ownership of a seal (or lack of same) was not the issue.
in all but the most exceptional cases, the seal(/s) (if any) attached to the
bottom of the charter could have been that of the "maker(/)s" of the charter,
named in the opening lines of it ("Ego X, y of z").
but, my interpretation of what i've seen is entirely ad hoc --i have no formal
training whatever in diplomatics-- and i would appreciate any corrections to
my fantasies anyone might offer.
> Today in the USA a variant cross (X) is used.
there's also the memorable scene in John Huston's _Moby Dick_ where QuigQuig
puts his "Signum" --which is a line drawing of a whale-- on the contract to
sail on the Pequod. i belive that that is in the book, as well.
>St. Benedict followed the Roman usage in his Rule (ch. 58), specifying that
the illiterate should sign his profession with a "signum."
so, you're saying that QuigQuig was a Benedictine?
an interesting thought.
kinky.
>At St. Gall in the 9-10th centuries, every entry in the book of professions
is preceded by a cross (+)....
...Some of the signatories were literate and proceeded to write out their
names, while others were not and
only made their mark. Evidently the + mark had become the general substitute
for a seal.
surely you don't mean "seal," do you?
at this date?
among the non-royal population?
surely it's just a "sign" --at the most (or, at the least) of the inability to
make anything more than your "mark" when required to witness some written
document?
Sealing is an whole other Ball of Wax.
besides, how, eggsactly, would one "seal" an entry in a "Book of
Professions"?
more to the point of the issue which Otfried originally raised might be the
question of how often (if ever) the Sign of the Cross was used at the
beginning of obituary entries in institutional necrologies --i.e., there it
would have definitely have been a Sign of Death.
i've used these obits quite a bit for historical purposes, but only from their
published copies, never from an original ms.
perhaps someone who is familiar with the originals can speak to this issue.
i have a hunch that crosses might well have been quite common in that
context.
c
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|